If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I am probably naive, but I think they are attempting to address actual discrimination affecting a constituent group as opposed to engaging in political game playing to reach a new constituency. I think what we are seeing are the airing of potential unintended consequences of legislation and this illustrates why legislation needs to be open and available for study and debate before it is actually voted on.

I am probably naive, but I think they are attempting to address actual discrimination affecting a constituent group as opposed to engaging in political game playing to reach a new constituency. I think what we are seeing are the airing of potential unintended consequences of legislation and this illustrates why legislation needs to be open and available for study and debate before it is actually voted on.

I read that every Democrat in the House voted for this. They must know that it will never pass in its current form. That’s why am wondering what they’re really trying to do.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

I read that every Democrat in the House voted for this. They must know that it will never pass in its current form. That’s why am wondering what they’re really trying to do.

They are playing the game. That's what they do. They will use negative votes against political opponents in the future. That was the purpose of the bill/vote. That's cynical, but it's also backed by thousands of years of evidence.

In this case, female voters will be a huge part of 2020. This allows democrats to say "he opposed equal pay for women" or whatever. Isn't that the purpose of all bills and votes?

I read that every Democrat in the House voted for this. They must know that it will never pass in its current form. That’s why am wondering what they’re really trying to do.

They may just be advocating on behalf of an existing constituent group. They could be trying to get the discussion started because they know the Senate will not pass it in its current form. They may be trying to put the screws to the GOP. They could be doing all of these things at the same time.

I guess I need to put my GOT learning to use and start asking the question of who is really benefiting from this and how are they benefiting? I have tried to avoid cynicism as a knee jerk response to everything, but I guess we have arrived at the point where nothing is ever done simply because it is the right thing to do. Someone has to win and someone has to lose.

AOC and Sanders are in the Scandinavian mold, and need to educate the electorate on what that means, which is a 21st century reincarnation of Teddy Roosevelt's "Square Deal", which helped save US capitalism from something far worse, as was happening in Russia.

Well, young feller, I don’t know about that! The Scandinavian model centers on a robust capitalism with a very generous safety net. I hear Sanders and AOC talking only about the latter, and I see no evidence that they care a bit about the former.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

I first read about this on high school and it still shocks me to this day.

(Note: I'm not drawing any parallels to any person now living or any current situation. Please resist the temptation to do so.)

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

There do seem to be a lot parallels about what happened then and what is happening now.

Maybe we can actually learn from the past and not let things get that bad again.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

Political/Cultural Chit-Chat

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

Older folks - 60+ - in my wife's hometown put together a "Remember when..." facebook group where they can reminisce about the past, post old photos, etc.

Somebody posted an old photo of riverboat races on the Ohio River next to town, with 3 boats - one with a US flag and the other two with Confederate flags.

This, of course, led to a discussion / debate about the role of the Confederate flag, and the inevitable claim that the Civil War was not at about slavery, but about states rights, tariffs from the north, etc.

Essentially, young children as young as 2 were joined into a group called "Children of the Confederacy" where they were indoctrinated with the erroneous ideas that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, but was about protecting southern heritage, or whatever. (For some reason no African American children were ever invited, and my wife knew nothing about these educational efforts.)

Fast forward to last week - the "owner" of the Facebook group announced that anyone who wanted to continue the debate about the South, the Civil War, etc, needed to take it off line, as Facebook was threatening to shut down the group.

Political/Cultural Chit-Chat

Older folks - 60+ - in my wife's hometown put together a "Remember when..." facebook group where they can reminisce about the past, post old photos, etc.

Somebody posted an old photo of riverboat races on the Ohio River next to town, with 3 boats - one with a US flag and the other two with Confederate flags.

This, of course, led to a discussion / debate about the role of the Confederate flag, and the inevitable claim that the Civil War was not at about slavery, but about states rights, tariffs from the north, etc.

Essentially, young children as young as 2 were joined into a group called "Children of the Confederacy" where they were indoctrinated with the erroneous ideas that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, but was about protecting southern heritage, or whatever. (For some reason no African American children were ever invited, and my wife knew nothing about these educational efforts.)

Fast forward to last week - the "owner" of the Facebook group announced that anyone who wanted to continue the debate about the South, the Civil War, etc, needed to take it off line, as Facebook was threatening to shut down the group.

Maybe... just maybe... a turn in the better direction.

I have no patience for the claim that the war was about much more than slavery. No slavery, no Civil War. That is the bottom line. As a Civil War buff, I can’t understand how anyone can be aware of the history and still claim that war was about some type of noble cause. It was not a noble cause.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

Political/Cultural Chit-Chat

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

One of my Econ profs, in describing the landscape of the political spectrum left of Ted Kennedy - "who is not a socialist, either by his own definition, nor in the opinion of socialists" - included Chile as an example. (This was in the 80s, when legit socialists envisioned a centrally planned economy as being feasible, given the computing power coming into existence that would facilitate the matrix math a centrally planned economy would require.)

The key difference between true socialists and communists - with Social Democrats a long way to the right of both on the political spectrum - is that communists recognized that the forces that would seek to topple any movement toward "true socialism" would never tolerate incremental movement toward that end. The prime example: what happened to Allende in Chile. (I realize there is a strong, very different view of what happened there, sort of an apologist view of what happened under Pinochet.)

Back in that era, among the far Left, Communists viewed "Socialists" as being naïve, that armed revolution was required. The same professor explained that the USSR was a hideous abomination of what Marx envisioned, and that Cuba may or may not have been able to work toward "true socialism", but the Bay of Pigs and ongoing sanctions made it a sharp uphill proposition. This viewpoint was a pretty sharp contrast to what the consensus from the Right (liberals and conservatives) on these topics, which made it interesting to learn about.

We also learned about other models, like Yugoslavia's more market based approach within a leftist consensus of giving the public most of the economic power, and there was also a description of employee owned businesses & cooperatives, but that they were mostly failing businesses beforehand, like neighborhood grocery stores the national chains abandoned.

Mostly the prof's work was an academic deep dive into human nature and different views of it, with an analysis of the ideological structures that supported different systems. For example, in Utah, the United Order and Brigham Young's strong condemnation of how greed and some of the harsher aspects of Capitalism could be legitimately seen as incompatible with the teachings of Jesus... hence the United Order, which was ditched.

It was all very interesting, but trying to imagine how such a system would exist in the late 20th century was a stretch.

Bottom line: "Socialism" was/is a reaction to the harsher aspects of Capitalism - the same objections many like AOC and Sanders are tapping into today - but I can't think of a single example of true socialism that actually worked, other that very small groups, economies of tribal people.

I think AOC and Sanders are embracing the pejorative "Socialism" in tapping into growing alienation, but realistically, Social Democracy is the only halfway feasible objective. I don't think AOC or Sanders or anyone in the US has seriously contemplated a centrally planned, socialist economy. It's so far out there, on par with proposing "Anarchy" as a serious proposition.

The article you referenced about how the Scandinavians have a national consensus that private enterprise is the economic engine to be harnessed, with a social safety net to take the edges off the Darwinism that accompanies that engine, is right on. I have no idea if we'll ever get around to trying to get to a similar consensus, but that's a far cry from people advocating public ownership of Amazon, or Boeing, or whatever. A centrally planned, socialist economy is such a far fetched notion that whoever advocates it has no idea what the hell they're talking about.

The Norwegians, Swedes, Fins and Danish have zero interest in that kind of system, and third world attempts at "Socialist Revolutions" are badly mangled outcomes of idealistic dreams.

I'm personally far more interested in Teddy Roosevelt's "square deal" that moderated the hard edges of our system, as compared to what the Russians were doing. We all benefitted quite a bit from that moderation, and there might be some opportunities for some similar efforts in the 21st century.

Reading all of the different failed socialist states in history and thinking about the current fondness on the left by folks like AOC and Sanders and their supporters reminds me of a scene in Arrested Development. Tobias and Lindsay are having serious marital problems and Tobias, an Analyst and Therapist proposes this solution:

" Tobias:
You know, Lindsay, as a therapist, I have advised... a number of couples to explore an open relationship where the couple remains emotionally committed but free to explore extramarital encounters.

Lindsay:
Well, did it work for those people?

Tobias:
No, it never does. I mean, these people somehow delude themselves into thinking it might, but... but it might work for us."

In other words, "Socialism doesn't ever work, I mean people somehow delude themselves into thinking it might but... but it might work for us."

I might agree that Sanders is far right of true socialism but I don't agree on that for AOC, at least what I've heard her talk about and what I understand about the Green New Deal. That requires true socialism and is much farther than just safety nets and taking the edges off of capitalism.

I also don't think that the Scandinavian countries that are always cited as successful socialism are really an apt comparison. They are small nations with far different demographics and economies than basically every major nation in the world. I believe that their economic and governments might work in a few select states in the US, but not as a nation as a whole. Why? Because those Scandinavian countries are not central or even essential to the world economy nor do they have major defensive needs like we do.

It's kind of like comparing Park City to Tooele. Park City has the best schools and preserves all this open space and supports the arts and is a tourism Mecca with skyrocketing real estate prices. Why doesn't Tooele do the same thing? I think we know why, it is simply a different place without the same wealth or even the hope of becoming a tourism destination. It doesn't have rich people and pretend rich people to prop up their schools and buy and preserve open space. Yadda yadda.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

I might agree that Sanders is far right of true socialism but I don't agree on that for AOC, at least what I've heard her talk about and what I understand about the Green New Deal. That requires true socialism and is much farther than just safety nets and taking the edges off of capitalism.

I also don't think that the Scandinavian countries that are always cited as successful socialism are really an apt comparison. They are small nations with far different demographics and economies than basically every major nation in the world. I believe that their economic and governments might work in a few select states in the US, but not as a nation as a whole. Why? Because those Scandinavian countries are not central or even essential to the world economy nor do they have major defensive needs like we do.

Uhhh... I think the Scandos are feeling the Russian menace pretty acutely. They can't match up militarily, but Sweden has produced jet fighters for a long time, and I'm sure Germany is losing their national guilt about WWII, as NATO is undermined and Putin freely divides Europe. (The big risk is if Germany aligns with China in producing high tech weaponry.)

On the Green New Deal, I think this is mostly considered an Apollo-like proposal, to address climate change, which is being ignored & the science even now suppressed here, though it's driving farmers out of Central America and making it so our own farmers can plant yet in their new lakes. The GND is also intended to stimulate new opportunities for good jobs, get the Millennials believing in the American Dream again. I haven't seen any proposals for states or the federal government to own these companies in the socialist mold, provide "jobs for life", etc. Jay Inslee of Washington State is a good ambassador for the GND. AOC is good at tapping into Millennial concerns.

Besides the Apollo program and its various spinoffs, the classic example of government initiated economic growth is how we got out of the Great Depression by economic activity to fight WWII. The construction of the Interstate system is another good example. The Internet itself is another good example - was a federal research project (at the U!) to provide mainframe computing resilience to a Soviet attack. (There are limits to the Keynesian stimulus model, of course. There are limits to any framework - eg, supply side economics. We're racking up insane levels of deficit/debt, in a boom economy.)

The challenges of getting a similar consensus about the role of capitalism and social safety nets ala the Scandinavian countries & Canada is a legit issue. Yet it begs the question of how Canada can take in the same number of legal immigrants we do (incl lots of refugees) yet Canada has good social stability, and my colleague from Sweden tells me they have a lot of immigrants there, too.

In the case of Canada, for a long time they've adopted the mindset of taxes being the price of a civilized society, and just watching the NBA games in Toronto, it's evident its a very diverse city. The Sikh under the right basket with his turban, seeing women wearing Hajibs in public, lots of Chinese, Indians, Afro-Canadians to go with plenty of white Canadians.

I like the Park City / Tooele comparison. Very apt. But the middle ground is maybe SLC can borrow some of Park City's recipe, eg, maybe the emphasis on education. The Canyons School District raised their minimum salary for teachers to $50,000, and teachers in my wife's district are thinking about trying to get jobs there. The Jordan parents I'm sure are terrified, but you have to decide what's important and build upward from there.

(Wow - that was a Waltonesque stream of consciousness. I blame coffee. )

EDIT: Do you need some help with a new cert, I'd be happy to pitch in. I hate it when mine expire.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

Uhhh... I think the Scandos are feeling the Russian menace pretty acutely. They can't match up militarily, but Sweden has produced jet fighters for a long time, and I'm sure Germany is losing their national guilt about WWII, as NATO is undermined and Putin freely divides Europe. (The big risk is if Germany aligns with China in producing high tech weaponry.)

On the Green New Deal, I think this is mostly considered an Apollo-like proposal, to address climate change, which is being ignored & the science even now suppressed here, though it's driving farmers out of Central America and making it so our own farmers can plant yet in their new lakes. The GND is also intended to stimulate new opportunities for good jobs, get the Millennials believing in the American Dream again. I haven't seen any proposals for states or the federal government to own these companies in the socialist mold, provide "jobs for life", etc. Jay Inslee of Washington State is a good ambassador for the GND. AOC is good at tapping into Millennial concerns.

Besides the Apollo program and its various spinoffs, the classic example of government initiated economic growth is how we got out of the Great Depression by economic activity to fight WWII. The construction of the Interstate system is another good example. The Internet itself is another good example - was a federal research project (at the U!) to provide mainframe computing resilience to a Soviet attack. (There are limits to the Keynesian stimulus model, of course. There are limits to any framework - eg, supply side economics. We're racking up insane levels of deficit/debt, in a boom economy.)

The challenges of getting a similar consensus about the role of capitalism and social safety nets ala the Scandinavian countries & Canada is a legit issue. Yet it begs the question of how Canada can take in the same number of legal immigrants we do (incl lots of refugees) yet Canada has good social stability, and my colleague from Sweden tells me they have a lot of immigrants there, too.

In the case of Canada, for a long time they've adopted the mindset of taxes being the price of a civilized society, and just watching the NBA games in Toronto, it's evident its a very diverse city. The Sikh under the right basket with his turban, seeing women wearing Hajibs in public, lots of Chinese, Indians, Afro-Canadians to go with plenty of white Canadians.

I like the Park City / Tooele comparison. Very apt. But the middle ground is maybe SLC can borrow some of Park City's recipe, eg, maybe the emphasis on education. The Canyons School District raised their minimum salary for teachers to $50,000, and teachers in my wife's district are thinking about trying to get jobs there. The Jordan parents I'm sure are terrified, but you have to decide what's important and build upward from there.

(Wow - that was a Waltonesque stream of consciousness. I blame coffee. )

EDIT: Do you need some help with a new cert, I'd be happy to pitch in. I hate it when mine expire.

OrangeUte is the owner of this site and I'm told that he has some personal things keeping him busy hence the expired cert. I'd recommend going forward they use letsencrypt as those certs are free and auto-renew.

Also if anyone is listening I'm more than happy to host this site on one of my servers for free and then we can keep up on the upkeep.

Back to both of our meandering points, when it comes to Scandinavia a very good friend just got back from deployment in the region. The US has a strong presence there and they are actually building a lot of infrastructure right now to support ongoing defense efforts against the Russians for all of our allies there. My real point though is the Scandinavian countries military interests and needs are dramatically different from every major nation (not that they don't have a military presence). And even if we migrated back to isolationist policies and decided we were not going to be the world's police, that would definitely require a decades long and properly planned withdrawal. I doubt that'll ever happen, nor do I think it should (although I also believe we overreach quite a bit).

I think the core difference between the Apollo's and the Green New Deal is the Apollo's were based on reality. I see nothing that indicates to me that she is simply waving an urgent flag to the realities we face, given the chance she would really do it. I've described her as Trump-esque which I know upsets people, but the more I see and learn the more I believe it. It really has been a lesson to me on what has long befuddled me about Trump in that despite his obvious nuttiness and unfitness some people just can't see it. I see the same thing with AOC.

And all of that has helped me realize how fortunate we've been to make it this far in our country without getting someone like Trump AND now that the genie is out of the bottle we are going to see more and more characters like him and AOC getting into powerful places.

The author is Russian born, which I think may help explain her strong bias toward free speech, no matter how toxic, but otherwise, I got the sense she was warning about the IDW being a magnet for all kinds of dangerous thinking just because it's anti-PC. "The enemy of your enemy may not be your friend".

My wife teaches at a Title I Jr. HS. They have a kid who is acting out, dad is a bishop, the kid spews white supremacist stuff in a school that is far more diverse than most in Utah. They brought his parents in, the dad was apparently in denial and the mom starting sobbing and couldn't stop. Messy situation. When I was at that age, we had an odd kid who professed an admiration for Adolph Hitler, I think mostly to get attention. (He turned out fine. Jr. HS can be an interesting time in the development of kids' brains & personalities.)

The difference is with today's technology anyone's opinion can be amplified and even a Jr. HS kid can get a national audience with radicals cheering them on, as the article describes happening.

Even though I generally disagree with him, one point Jordan Peterson makes I agree with is there needs to be boundaries, and culture is important.

We have a multi-cultural society, but we need some unifying cultural foundation, and there have to be limits. You can't beat your kids. You can't threaten others. Basically, all the stuff we learn in Kindergarten. There will always be some problems and friction with diversity, but I think the world is a better place the more people interact and build connections and understand and respect each other, and if that can happen in Elementary school & Jr HS, it's far easier than later, when thinking is engrained & open-mindedness seems to disappear far too often.

Diversity can be an inoculation against unbridled nationalism, which has led to countless wars over the course of history.

Back to both of our meandering points, when it comes to Scandinavia a very good friend just got back from deployment in the region. The US has a strong presence there and they are actually building a lot of infrastructure right now to support ongoing defense efforts against the Russians for all of our allies there.

Political/Cultural Chit-Chat

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

That *was* a long read, JD.

The author is Russian born, which I think may help explain her strong bias toward free speech, no matter how toxic, but otherwise, I got the sense she was warning about the IDW being a magnet for all kinds of dangerous thinking just because it's anti-PC. "The enemy of your enemy may not be your friend".

My wife teaches at a Title I Jr. HS. They have a kid who is acting out, dad is a bishop, the kid spews white supremacist stuff in a school that is far more diverse than most in Utah. They brought his parents in, the dad was apparently in denial and the mom starting sobbing and couldn't stop. Messy situation. When I was at that age, we had an odd kid who professed an admiration for Adolph Hitler, I think mostly to get attention. (He turned out fine. Jr. HS can be an interesting time in the development of kids' brains & personalities.)

The difference is with today's technology anyone's opinion can be amplified and even a Jr. HS kid can get a national audience with radicals cheering them on, as the article describes happening.

Even though I generally disagree with him, one point Jordan Peterson makes I agree with is there needs to be boundaries, and culture is important.

We have a multi-cultural society, but we need some unifying cultural foundation, and there have to be limits. You can't beat your kids. You can't threaten others. Basically, all the stuff we learn in Kindergarten. There will always be some problems and friction with diversity, but I think the world is a better place the more people interact and build connections and understand and respect each other, and if that can happen in Elementary school & Jr HS, it's far easier than later, when thinking is engrained & open-mindedness seems to disappear far too often.

Diversity can be an inoculation against unbridled nationalism, which has led to countless wars over the course of history.

Right. I think avoiding excessive tribalism is a bipartisan goal, at least for those not on either fringe. As you note, there will always be some tribalism, because that’s just human nature. But we should collectively set boundaries on it.

Last edited by LA Ute; 06-02-2019 at 07:52 AM.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

I used to have a joke I'd lay out in (the right) mixed company, about how the Founding Fathers' vision was only for white, land-owning males to have voting power, and we strayed offcourse as a nation when we opened up the franchise to Native Americans, African Americans... and especially when we allowed women the right to vote.

"The only thing worse was when we allowed women to drive! That was a collosal mistake that we'll be paying for, for a long time!"

This article is a much more serious look at the tension on the conservative right between adhering to the spirit of the FF's vision of "all men are created equal" vs the power of ethno-nationalism's electoral potency: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...rnment/590977/

This retro debate and the urgency of the issue is spurred by how differently these issues are viewed by the coming younger generation of voters, as described by David Brooks' recent column, conveying just how vast the difference is in their views, and how it's not likely just a result of their youth: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/03/o...ation-gap.html

I used to have a joke I'd lay out in (the right) mixed company, about how the Founding Fathers' vision was only for white, land-owning males to have voting power, and we strayed offcourse as a nation when we opened up the franchise to Native Americans, African Americans... and especially when we allowed women the right to vote.

"The only thing worse was when we allowed women to drive! That was a collosal mistake that we'll be paying for, for a long time!"

This article is a much more serious look at the tension on the conservative right between adhering to the spirit of the FF's vision of "all men are created equal" vs the power of ethno-nationalism's electoral potency: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...rnment/590977/

This retro debate and the urgency of the issue is spurred by how differently these issues are viewed by the coming younger generation of voters, as described by David Brooks' recent column, conveying just how vast the difference is in their views, and how it's not likely just a result of their youth: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/03/o...ation-gap.html

Ma'ake, are you willing to acknowledge any corresponding tension on the left?

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

Trump has a good speech writer. This is a beautiful speech -- he gave it at the D-Day 75th anniversary celebration today:

___________________________

President Macron, Mrs. Macron, and the people of France; to the First Lady of the United States and members of the United States Congress; to distinguished guests, veterans, and my fellow Americans:

We are gathered here on Freedom’s Altar. On these shores, on these bluffs, on this day 75 years ago, 10,000 men shed their blood, and thousands sacrificed their lives, for their brothers, for their countries, and for the survival of liberty.

Today, we remember those who fell, and we honor all who fought right here in Normandy. They won back this ground for civilization.

To more than 170 veterans of the Second World War who join us today: You are among the very greatest Americans who will ever live. You're the pride of our nation. You are the glory of our republic. And we thank you from the bottom of our hearts. (Applause.)

Here with you are over 60 veterans who landed on D-Day. Our debt to you is everlasting. Today, we express our undying gratitude.

When you were young, these men enlisted their lives in a Great Crusade -- one of the greatest of all times. Their mission is the story of an epic battle and the ferocious, eternal struggle between good and evil.

On the 6th of June, 1944, they joined a liberation force of awesome power and breathtaking scale. After months of planning, the Allies had chosen this ancient coastline to mount their campaign to vanquish the wicked tyranny of the Nazi empire from the face of the Earth.

The battle began in the skies above us. In those first tense midnight hours, 1,000 aircraft roared overhead with 17,000 Allied airborne troops preparing to leap into the darkness beyond these trees.

Then came dawn. The enemy who had occupied these heights saw the largest naval armada in the history of the world. Just a few miles offshore were 7,000 vessels bearing 130,000 warriors. They were the citizens of free and independent nations, united by their duty to their compatriots and to millions yet unborn.

There were the British, whose nobility and fortitude saw them through the worst of Dunkirk and the London Blitz. The full violence of Nazi fury was no match for the full grandeur of British pride. Thank you. (Applause.)

There were the Canadians, whose robust sense of honor and loyalty compelled them to take up arms alongside Britain from the very, very beginning.

There were the fighting Poles, the tough Norwegians, and the intrepid Aussies. There were the gallant French commandos, soon to be met by thousands of their brave countrymen ready to write a new chapter in the long history of French valor. (Applause.)

And, finally, there were the Americans. They came from the farms of a vast heartland, the streets of glowing cities, and the forges of mighty industrial towns. Before the war, many had never ventured beyond their own community. Now they had come to offer their lives half a world from home.

This beach, codenamed Omaha, was defended by the Nazis with monstrous firepower, thousands and thousands of mines and spikes driven into the sand, so deeply. It was here that tens of thousands of the Americans came.

The GIs who boarded the landing craft that morning knew that they carried on their shoulders not just the pack of a soldier, but the fate of the world. Colonel George Taylor, whose 16th Infantry Regiment would join in the first wave, was asked: What would happen if the Germans stopped right then and there, cold on the beach -- just stopped them? What would happen? This great American replied: “Why, the 18th Infantry is coming in right behind us. The 26th Infantry will come on too. Then there is the 2nd Infantry Division already afloat. And the 9th Division. And the 2nd Armored. And the 3rd Armored. And all the rest. Maybe the 16th won’t make it, but someone will.”

One of those men in Taylor’s 16th Regiment was Army medic Ray Lambert. Ray was only 23, but he had already earned three Purple Hearts and two Silver Stars fighting in North Africa and Sicily, where he and his brother Bill, no longer with us, served side by side.

In the early morning hours, the two brothers stood together on the deck of the USS Henrico, before boarding two separate Higgins landing craft. “If I don’t make it,” Bill said, "please, please take care of my family.” Ray asked his brother to do the same.

Of the 31 men on Ray’s landing craft, only Ray and 6 others made it to the beach. There were only a few of them left. They came to the sector right here below us. “Easy Red” it was called. Again and again, Ray ran back into the water. He dragged out one man after another. He was shot through the arm. His leg was ripped open by shrapnel. His back was broken. He nearly drowned.

He had been on the beach for hours, bleeding and saving lives, when he finally lost consciousness. He woke up the next day on a cot beside another badly wounded soldier. He looked over and saw his brother Bill. They made it. They made it. They made it.

At 98 years old, Ray is here with us today, with his fourth Purple Heart and his third Silver Star from Omaha. (Applause.) Ray, the free world salutes you. (Applause.) Thank you, Ray. (Applause.)

Nearly two hours in, unrelenting fire from these bluffs kept the Americans pinned down on the sand now red with our heroes’ blood. Then, just a few hundred yards from where I'm standing, a breakthrough came. The battle turned, and with it, history.

Down on the beach, Captain Joe Dawson, the son of a Texas preacher, led Company G through a minefield to a natural fold in the hillside, still here. Just beyond this path to my right, Captain Dawson snuck beneath an enemy machine gun perch and tossed his grenades. Soon, American troops were charging up “Dawson’s Draw.” What a job he did. What bravery he showed.

Lieutenant Spalding and the men from Company E moved on to crush the enemy strongpoint on the far side of this cemetery, and stop the slaughter on the beach below. Countless more Americans poured out across this ground all over the countryside. They joined fellow American warriors from Utah beach, and Allies from Juno, Sword, and Gold, along with the airborne and the French patriots.

Private First Class Russell Pickett, of the 29th Division’s famed 116th Infantry Regiment, had been wounded in the first wave that landed on Omaha Beach. At a hospital in England, Private Pickett vowed to return to battle. "I'm going to return," he said. "I'm going to return."

Six days after D-Day, he rejoined his company. Two thirds had been killed already; many had been wounded, within 15 minutes of the invasion. They’d lost 19 just from small town of Bedford, Virginia, alone. Before long, a grenade left Private Pickett again gravely wounded. So badly wounded. Again, he chose to return. He didn’t care; he had to be here.

He was then wounded a third time, and laid unconscious for 12 days. They thought he was gone. They thought he had no chance. Russell Pickett is the last known survivor of the legendary Company A. And, today, believe it or not, he has returned once more to these shores to be with his comrades. Private Pickett, you honor us all with your presence. (Applause.) Tough guy. (Laughter.)

By the fourth week of August, Paris was liberated. (Applause.) Some who landed here pushed all the way to the center of Germany. Some threw open the gates of Nazi concentration camps to liberate Jews who had suffered the bottomless horrors of the Holocaust. And some warriors fell on other fields of battle, returning to rest on this soil for eternity.

Before this place was consecrated to history, the land was owned by a French farmer, a member of the French resistance. These were great people. These were strong and tough people. His terrified wife waited out D-Day in a nearby house, holding tight to their little baby girl. The next day, a soldier appeared. “I’m an American,” he said. “I’m here to help.” The French woman was overcome with emotion and cried. Days later, she laid flowers on fresh American graves.

Today, her granddaughter, Stefanie, serves as a guide at this cemetery. This week, Stefanie led 92-year-old Marian Wynn of California to see the grave of her brother Don for the very first time.

Marian and Stefanie are both with us today. And we thank you for keeping alive the memories of our precious heroes. Thank you. (Applause.)

9,388 young Americans rest beneath the white crosses and Stars of David arrayed on these beautiful grounds. Each one has been adopted by a French family that thinks of him as their own. They come from all over France to look after our boys. They kneel. They cry. They pray. They place flowers. And they never forget. Today, America embraces the French people and thanks you for honoring our beloved dead. Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you.

To all of our friends and partners: Our cherished alliance was forged in the heat of battle, tested in the trials of war, and proven in the blessings of peace. Our bond is unbreakable.

From across the Earth, Americans are drawn to this place as though it were a part of our very soul. We come not only because of what they did here. We come because of who they were.

They were young men with their entire lives before them. They were husbands who said goodbye to their young brides and took their duty as their fate. They were fathers who would never meet their infant sons and daughters because they had a job to do. And with God as their witness, they were going to get it done. They came wave after wave, without question, without hesitation, and without complaint.

More powerful than the strength of American arms was the strength of American hearts.

These men ran through the fires of hell moved by a force no weapon could destroy: the fierce patriotism of a free, proud, and sovereign people. (Applause.) They battled not for control and domination, but for liberty, democracy, and self-rule.

They pressed on for love in home and country -- the Main Streets, the schoolyards, the churches and neighbors, the families and communities that gave us men such as these.

They were sustained by the confidence that America can do anything because we are a noble nation, with a virtuous people, praying to a righteous God.

The exceptional might came from a truly exceptional spirit. The abundance of courage came from an abundance of faith. The great deeds of an Army came from the great depths of their love.

As they confronted their fate, the Americans and the Allies placed themselves into the palm of God’s hand.

The men behind me will tell you that they are just the lucky ones. As one of them recently put it, “All the heroes are buried here.” But we know what these men did. We knew how brave they were. They came here and saved freedom, and then, they went home and showed us all what freedom is all about.

The American sons and daughters who saw us to victory were no less extraordinary in peace. They built families. They built industries. They built a national culture that inspired the entire world. In the decades that followed, America defeated communism, secured civil rights, revolutionized science, launched a man to the moon, and then kept on pushing to new frontiers. And, today, America is stronger than ever before. (Applause.)

Seven decades ago, the warriors of D-Day fought a sinister enemy who spoke of a thousand-year empire. In defeating that evil, they left a legacy that will last not only for a thousand years, but for all time -- for as long as the soul knows of duty and honor; for as long as freedom keeps its hold on the human heart.

To the men who sit behind me, and to the boys who rest in the field before me, your example will never, ever grow old. (Applause.) Your legend will never tire. Your spirit -- brave, unyielding, and true -- will never die.

The blood that they spilled, the tears that they shed, the lives that they gave, the sacrifice that they made, did not just win a battle. It did not just win a war. Those who fought here won a future for our nation. They won the survival of our civilization. And they showed us the way to love, cherish, and defend our way of life for many centuries to come.

Today, as we stand together upon this sacred Earth, we pledge that our nations will forever be strong and united. We will forever be together. Our people will forever be bold. Our hearts will forever be loyal. And our children, and their children, will forever and always be free.

May God bless our great veterans. May God bless our Allies. May God bless the heroes of D-Day. And may God bless America. Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you very much.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

Political/Cultural Chit-Chat

Originally Posted by Irving Washington

Explain, please, in the context of Millenials and Gen Z

Liberals (I’m generalizing) often seem very concerned (often using the word “frightening”) about trends they see on the right. They see the next Hitler around every corner, and often wax eloquent on the subject. You should see some of the things my very liberal partners in our New York office write. I am not frightened by the left, but I see some trends that are disturbing. I just wonder if my liberal friends see the same thing. I don´t know what millennials and Gen Z have to do with it, but I´m ready to learn.

Last edited by LA Ute; 06-09-2019 at 08:16 AM.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

Liberals (I’m generalizing) often seem very concerned (often using the word “frightening”) about trends they see on the right. They see the next Hitler around every corner, and often wax eloquent on the subject. You should see some of the things my very liberal partners in our New York office right. I am not frightened by the left, but I see some trends that are disturbing. I just wonder if my liberal friends see the same thing. I don´t know what millennials and Gen Z have to do with it, but I´m ready to learn.

My only concern is the one Brooks mentioned, that Millenials and Gen Z might be too strident in their progressivism. But I get it. I was there ten or fifteen years age, but age makes you more realistic (and maybe thoughtful.) Didn't Churchill say something like if you are in your twenties and are a conservative, you have no heart, and a liberal in your fifties you have no brains?

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”